 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it just serves as a general notation that the source is 24/96. DVDs have had similar mentions on the back of their cases ("Mastered in High Definition") for years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Broken" songs on iTunes sometimes take forever to fix, and that's if they even take the problem tracks down in the first place. They have to go back to the source label, which is why you see the same errors across all the digital retailers for certain songs/albums.
iTunes does seem to take ages to fix issues with problem tracks. That's why, if there's an option, I go straight to the composer or label and let them know that there's a problem with their product. This can result in a quicker response - getting the replacement tracks directly from the composer/label.
Admittedly, this only really happens with small labels and/or composers who are much more approachable (via email, etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if iTunes match will now stream in lossless? Is this even possible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just hope they don't move exclusively to 24 bit. It seems completely silly if they offer nothing but MP3 and 24bit. Hopefully this will be rolled out in the same way as other sites that offer 24 bit. They tend to have a price for each format but if you buy the 24 bit you get all 3 and can download each one separately. This way you don't have to bother trying to convert the 24 bit files to 16 bit FLAC yourself.
I don't have any interest in 24 bit audio because the differences are negligible. Study after study has shown that the difference between one CD that sounds worse than a different 24 bit recording is the improved mastering not any significant difference in quality. Size is also an issue because 24 bit can be 2-3x larger than the same album in 16 bit lossless. I've purchased a few albums in 24 bit but ultimately backed up the 24 bit and kept the 16 bit on the hard drive because my current setup can't output in 24 bit anyway.
I also think the concern about watermarks is legitimate. I don't think that it is an issue with the compression technology but one with the watermarks. Hopefully we won't see watermarks causing issues with future higher quality versions of the files but only time will tell.
Absolutely correct. While it makes sense to work in a 24 bit environment when using fx chains and mixing down dozens of tracks in a recording studio, there is no audible benefit to 24 bit recordings in the home (or pretty much anywhere else, for that matter). There is also no audible benefit to 96 khz or 192 khz sampling rates in terms of reproducing musical content. None. The only benefit to higher sampling rates is that a low pass filter with a more gentle slope can be used to remove aliasing distortion. This can also be accomplished by oversampling standard 44.1 khz material like that on CD.
This whole debate is directly analogous to people demanding that ultraviolet and infrared frequencies be included as part of the HDTV spec. Yet no one clamors for this. Why? Because you can't see ultraviolet and infrared frequencies with the human eye. Nor can you hear frequencies above 20khz with the human ear. And, contrary to some opinions, going from 16 bit to 24 bit recording does not give "greater resolution" to the music - it simply lowers the noise floor of the recording, giving you a bit more dynamic range. But even the 16 bit resolution of CD is able to recreate such a tremendous dynamic range that it exceeds what we are capable of hearing without damage to our ears.
The problem lies in the overcompressed dynamics currently in vogue - the so-called "loudness wars." This is what is destroying dynamics and overall sound quality, not the supposed limitations of 44/16 CD.
And, as you mentioned, the studies reveal over and over again no audible benefit to these technologies when tested under controlled conditions. And it's not some guy in a basement doing these studies, it is the AES - the Audio Engineering Society - that performed the biggest study:
http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
Their conclusion? "Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs — sometimes much better. Had we not
“degraded" the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them."
In other words, it is the mastering that accounts for the better sound quality, not the format (read the whole linked to study for context). This is easy to test yourself. Simply take a high rez 24 bit 192khz file, then down rez it to 16 bit 44.1khz. Play them alternately at the exact same volume level, and see if you can hear any moment. My prediction is that you would choose correctly just about 50% of the time, which is the same result you would get by guessing.
So, my take on this - FWIW - is that lossless downloads are a GOOD thing, but that the massive file sizes required for lossless 24/192 are just a waste of space. Lossless 44/16 (or 48/16) are all we need - along with better quality mastering of the recording by engineers not trying to win the loudness war.
For anyone interested in the actual science behind all of this, watch this excellent series of videos on xiph.org. What's cool is that Monty at Xiph actually disproves many digital audio myths by actual demonstrating the fallacies in these videos:
https://www.xiph.org/video/
Monty at Xiph also wrote an excellent article that backs up the AES (Audio Engineering Society) conclusions here (again, with many illustrations to aid in his myth-busting):
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For anyone who wants to actually test high rez downloads vs. standard 44/16 CD, here are two free programs to do it:
Foobar 2000 media player: http://www.foobar2000.org/
Foobar 2000 ABX comparator plugin (which allows you to switch back and forth between files without knowing which one is playing): http://www.foobar2000.org/components/view/foo_abx
The cool thing about the ABX comparator is that you can also compare the original file (high rez or otherwise) with your mp3 / aac lossy encodes. You can determine for yourself when you actually start to hear the compression artifacts. For most (but not all) people, 128kbps mp3 using CVBR settings is audibly indistinguishable from the original (high rez or not).
Please note that I am not attempting to suggest that 128kbps mp3 is all you need. In fact, I always recommend that all files be stored in lossless format.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'd just settle for lossless 16 bit from iTunes. If they want to go 24/96 then great, but the only way I'll ever buy anything from them is if I can get lossless.
I agree - I want lossless. I have never bought anything from them for the same reason.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just hope they don't move exclusively to 24 bit. It seems completely silly if they offer nothing but MP3 and 24bit. Hopefully this will be rolled out in the same way as other sites that offer 24 bit. They tend to have a price for each format but if you buy the 24 bit you get all 3 and can download each one separately. This way you don't have to bother trying to convert the 24 bit files to 16 bit FLAC yourself.
I don't have any interest in 24 bit audio because the differences are negligible. Study after study has shown that the difference between one CD that sounds worse than a different 24 bit recording is the improved mastering not any significant difference in quality. Size is also an issue because 24 bit can be 2-3x larger than the same album in 16 bit lossless. I've purchased a few albums in 24 bit but ultimately backed up the 24 bit and kept the 16 bit on the hard drive because my current setup can't output in 24 bit anyway.
I also think the concern about watermarks is legitimate. I don't think that it is an issue with the compression technology but one with the watermarks. Hopefully we won't see watermarks causing issues with future higher quality versions of the files but only time will tell.
Absolutely correct. While it makes sense to work in a 24 bit environment when using fx chains and mixing down dozens of tracks in a recording studio, there is no audible benefit to 24 bit recordings in the home (or pretty much anywhere else, for that matter). There is also no audible benefit to 96 khz or 192 khz sampling rates in terms of reproducing musical content. None. The only benefit to higher sampling rates is that a low pass filter with a more gentle slope can be used to remove aliasing distortion. This can also be accomplished by oversampling standard 44.1 khz material like that on CD.
This whole debate is directly analogous to people demanding that ultraviolet and infrared frequencies be included as part of the HDTV spec. Yet no one clamors for this. Why? Because you can't see ultraviolet and infrared frequencies with the human eye. Nor can you hear frequencies above 20khz with the human ear. And, contrary to some opinions, going from 16 bit to 24 bit recording does not give "greater resolution" to the music - it simply lowers the noise floor of the recording, giving you a bit more dynamic range. But even the 16 bit resolution of CD is able to recreate such a tremendous dynamic range that it exceeds what we are capable of hearing without damage to our ears.
The problem lies in the overcompressed dynamics currently in vogue - the so-called "loudness wars." This is what is destroying dynamics and overall sound quality, not the supposed limitations of 44/16 CD.
And, as you mentioned, the studies reveal over and over again no audible benefit to these technologies when tested under controlled conditions. And it's not some guy in a basement doing these studies, it is the AES - the Audio Engineering Society - that performed the biggest study:
http://www.drewdaniels.com/audible.pdf
Their conclusion? "Though our tests failed to substantiate the claimed advantages of high-resolution encoding for two-channel audio, one trend became obvious very quickly and held up throughout our testing: virtually all of the SACD and DVD-A recordings sounded better than most CDs — sometimes much better. Had we not
“degraded" the sound to CD quality and blind-tested for audible differences, we would have been tempted to ascribe this sonic superiority to the recording processes used to make them."
In other words, it is the mastering that accounts for the better sound quality, not the format (read the whole linked to study for context). This is easy to test yourself. Simply take a high rez 24 bit 192khz file, then down rez it to 16 bit 44.1khz. Play them alternately at the exact same volume level, and see if you can hear any moment. My prediction is that you would choose correctly just about 50% of the time, which is the same result you would get by guessing.
So, my take on this - FWIW - is that lossless downloads are a GOOD thing, but that the massive file sizes required for lossless 24/192 are just a waste of space. Lossless 44/16 (or 48/16) are all we need - along with better quality mastering of the recording by engineers not trying to win the loudness war.
For anyone interested in the actual science behind all of this, watch this excellent series of videos on xiph.org. What's cool is that Monty at Xiph actually disproves many digital audio myths by actual demonstrating the fallacies in these videos:
https://www.xiph.org/video/
Monty at Xiph also wrote an excellent article that backs up the AES (Audio Engineering Society) conclusions here (again, with many illustrations to aid in his myth-busting):
http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html
John, as much as I admire anyone who takes a position and brings the facts to back it up, if Apple chooses to make a BUSINESS DECISION and go with 24-bit files, quoting the AES and a bunch of articles that “ha-rumph” those conclusions, won't make a single bit of difference.
Let's be clear, there are NO STANDARDS in digital recording...hence the resulting “loudness war.” Since modern digital audio and video came on the scene it's a new format every week. It's not like the good old days of magnetic tape recording and vinyl records and the NAB, IEC and RIAA. Everyone agreed on reasonable STANDARDS based on scientific reality.
In the face of growing, massive corporate marketing of “higher-louder-faster,” the AES, sorry to say, is a toothless tiger roaring at a room full of deaf gazelles.
For the record, as I've stated here before, I've no problem with 24-bit files and higher sampling rates. But technically speaking the 20Hz to 20kHz “concept” has never been anything more than that. Musically there's nothing above 12.5kHz. No, these two items are not a contradiction. They are just my opinion.
Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Apr 13, 2014 - 8:19 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Maleficio
(Member)
|
Even if someone can't distinguish the difference on a mid-fi system they have today, doesn't mean they won't hear a big difference when they buy improved audio kit in future.
It's then they'll wish they hadn't settled for the inferior lossy stuff.
Indeed. On low to mid-fi systems, of course you can't tell the difference between 320 and lossless or 24bit and 16bit - I know, I've had entry level components.
But once you start investing in separate components: a good DAC, preamp, amp, quality cables, and of course, the best speakers you can afford - you will hear the difference.
And that's why whenever a soundtrack is released in 24bit, I don't miss the chance to grab it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 13, 2014 - 9:38 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
djintrepid
(Member)
|
I agree, mastering IS incredibly important. It can make or break a song or album and one's enjoyment of it. For instance, I really like Arcade Fire's Reflektor album, but I can't listen to the CD at all because the mastering is atrocious. The recordings sound shrill, flat, and lifeless on every playback system I've tried it on.
I also believe that 24 bit recordings can sound better than 16 bit depending on the technology used in ones playback system, the environment in which that system is located, as well as how the recording is mastered. I've listened to many high resolution recordings against the CD's counterparts and in most cases I've easily preferred the high resolution versions, even when burned to a CD. However, I have also heard poorly mastered high res recordings that were the same as or inferior to a CD release from years earlier. Most notable for me was the first three Madonna albums offered through HDtracks. Her first and third albums were no different from the CD's, but her second album Like A Virgin was worse, way worse than the CD released a whole decade earlier. It was the sloppiest mastering I'd ever heard in my entire life that it me made me angry enough to fire off a letter to Warner Bros/Sire.
Now, going back to the 24 bit vs 16 bit debate, I am still a proponent of 24 bit, but since hearing the new DSD conversion process from components that Sony and PS Audio have recently introduced on the market, 16 bit CD recordings are no longer perceived as inferior by me. On the contrary, they sound as good or even better than 24 bit high res, depending on the mastering. Music also sounds far more live and real than I've heard CD recordings sound before. I feel jilted that I have not been able to listen to all of the recordings in my collection the way they were meant to be heard; All due to the limitations of the PCM playback system. I am however looking forward to revisiting my entire collection once I'm able to acquire one of those components for myself. If anyone gets the opportunity to try out one of them out, take the time to listen. You won't be sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Apr 13, 2014 - 11:50 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Sirusjr
(Member)
|
Even if someone can't distinguish the difference on a mid-fi system they have today, doesn't mean they won't hear a big difference when they buy improved audio kit in future.
It's then they'll wish they hadn't settled for the inferior lossy stuff.
Indeed. On low to mid-fi systems, of course you can't tell the difference between 320 and lossless or 24bit and 16bit - I know, I've had entry level components.
But once you start investing in separate components: a good DAC, preamp, amp, quality cables, and of course, the best speakers you can afford - you will hear the difference.
And that's why whenever a soundtrack is released in 24bit, I don't miss the chance to grab it.
This assumes that someone is going to eventually upgrade to a professional system. Second, it assumes that you are going to have time to sit and enjoy music in that professional system. I'd sooner stick to the lossless.
As the post just above me shows, he admits that most of the differences with new 24 bit recordings is the mastering used because once burned to CD they sound better than the original CD. One day I might set up my own test to see if I can tell the difference between lossless and 24 bit once I have the proper system but I doubt I will be able to tell. I'd rather spend my time enjoying what I already have in 16 bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John, as much as I admire anyone who takes a position and brings the facts to back it up, if Apple chooses to make a BUSINESS DECISION and go with 24-bit files, quoting the AES and a bunch of articles that “ha-rumph” those conclusions, won't make a single bit of difference.
Let's be clear, there are NO STANDARDS in digital recording...hence the resulting “loudness war.” Since modern digital audio and video came on the scene it's a new format every week. It's not like the good old days of magnetic tape recording and vinyl records and the NAB, IEC and RIAA. Everyone agreed on reasonable STANDARDS based on scientific reality.
In the face of growing, massive corporate marketing of “higher-louder-faster,” the AES, sorry to say, is a toothless tiger roaring at a room full of deaf gazelles.
For the record, as I've stated here before, I've no problem with 24-bit files and higher sampling rates. But technically speaking the 20Hz to 20kHz “concept” has never been anything more than that. Musically there's nothing above 12.5kHz. No, these two items are not a contradiction. They are just my opinion.
Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs.
First of all, I would really like to keep this at the level of clear, open and friendly discussion. Many times when these topics come up here (and on other forums), they devolve rapidly into arguments with heated exchanges. I really do NOT want that to happen. So, it is with this in mind that I offer the following:
If you are suggesting that I think that posting my comments here is somehow going to influence Apple, of course I think no such thing. However, I *may* influence people not to throw money away on things they do not need. I also think that it behooves ALL of us to call "bs" on something when a person or corporation makes a statement of fact that we know to be erroneous. Now, it is true that this Apple "high rez" stuff is all just a rumor, so we don't really have anything to go with yet. If Apple just starts offering lossless downloads in 24 bit resolution, I have no problem with that (in fact, I welcome lossless). But if they also start promoting them with some kind of marketing campaign that claims "hear the incredible night and day benefits of 24 bit resolution," that's when I would seriously claim bs. And I would not be the only one.
Bit resolution for audio simply increases dynamic range. That is ALL that it does. I think people get caught up with the "resolution" term, thinking that it equates to resolution along the same lines it does with video (as in 1080P resolution has more visible picture detail that 720P resolution, for example). But they are not directly analogous. Not even close. Even 16 bits of dynamic range can reproduce the difference in volume level between a mosquito buzzing and the sound of a jack hammer a foot away from your ear (as pointed out in Monty's article).
Yes, I am well aware that there are no targets for overall and peak loudness when it comes to mixing audio. This was even discussed at the Hollywood Post Alliance retreat I attended last month in Palm Springs (the Hollywood Post Retreat is a large meeting of all the major players from all of the major studios in the field of post production audio and video). There ARE some companies (such as JBL / Harman) and organizations trying to remedy this situation. I mix for film primarily, and as you are probably aware, there are very strict guidelines for reference levels (especially when it comes to broadcast). I totally agree with the sentiment you express in the statement, "It's not like the good old days of magnetic tape recording and vinyl records and the NAB, IEC and RIAA. Everyone agreed on reasonable STANDARDS based on scientific reality." I would support EXACTLY what you are suggesting - reasonable standards based on scientific reality.
But, based upon the talks I attended and the discussions I had with the folks at the retreat, I do hold out some real hope that those who have concerns that line up with those of the AES are more than "a toothless tiger roaring at a room full of deaf gazelles" (nice metaphor, btw  .
By "musically, there is nothing above 12.5 khz" do you just mean that that figure corresponds to the highest note reproducible by any acoustic instrument? Not sure where you were going with that...
Also not sure what you mean by the 20hz to 20khz "concept," as in what do you mean by "concept"?
As for the "don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs" comment, I am trying not to take offense at that, as I'm not sure exactly how you meant that either. It usually means "don't try to tell people who know much more than you what to do." I hope that is not what you intended. If so, I am happy to share my credentials.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even if someone can't distinguish the difference on a mid-fi system they have today, doesn't mean they won't hear a big difference when they buy improved audio kit in future.
It's then they'll wish they hadn't settled for the inferior lossy stuff.
Indeed. On low to mid-fi systems, of course you can't tell the difference between 320 and lossless or 24bit and 16bit - I know, I've had entry level components.
But once you start investing in separate components: a good DAC, preamp, amp, quality cables, and of course, the best speakers you can afford - you will hear the difference.
And that's why whenever a soundtrack is released in 24bit, I don't miss the chance to grab it.
This assumes that someone is going to eventually upgrade to a professional system. Second, it assumes that you are going to have time to sit and enjoy music in that professional system. I'd sooner stick to the lossless.
As the post just above me shows, he admits that most of the differences with new 24 bit recordings is the mastering used because once burned to CD they sound better than the original CD. One day I might set up my own test to see if I can tell the difference between lossless and 24 bit once I have the proper system but I doubt I will be able to tell. I'd rather spend my time enjoying what I already have in 16 bit.
I actually have a professional system, and have sat in many state of the art mixing rooms. Even in these rooms no one can tell a difference when simple controls have been in place (precise volume matching, blind protocols - such as abx - put in place). In fact, if anyone takes the time to actually read the studies and articles I linked to, the tests undertaken used the very highest end of gear and a mix of test subjects that included professional audio engineers, trained so called "audiophile" listeners, and college age music enthusiasts.
So, good news for you - you are safe no matter what you upgrade to later. If a recording has been remastered for better sound quality, go ahead and pick it up. However, the improvement will be in the mastering and will have nothing to do with the fact that the file you are listening to has 24 bits of resolution (or an insane sampling rate out to 192 khz).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The cool thing about the ABX comparator is that you can also compare the original file (high rez or otherwise) with your mp3 / aac lossy encodes. You can determine for yourself when you actually start to hear the compression artifacts.
Even if someone can't distinguish the difference on a mid-fi system they have today, doesn't mean they won't hear a big difference when they buy improved audio kit in future.
It's then they'll wish they hadn't settled for the inferior lossy stuff.
If you are interested in blind listening comparisons of different "lossy" codecs, you might spend some real time at www.hydrogenaudio.org. There the members are constantly conducting double blind listening tests of the various lossy codecs against lossless and publishing the results. Of course, there are audible differences at lower bit rates. What is interesting is that once you pass a certain threshold, depending on the codec itself and the bit rate used, even the high end guys on the forum find the lossy codec is audibly indistinguishable from the original. Part of the protocol on the forum is that the testers specify the gear tested on, so it is possible to determine what exactly is mid-fi as opposed to hi-fi (personally, I think the terms are basically interchangeable except when it comes to speakers and the acoustic properties of the room the tests are held in).
I would imagine that you consider your system to be hi-fi, which might make it all the more interesting to try the ABX comparison on your own gear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On low to mid-fi systems, of course you can't tell the difference between 320 and lossless or 24bit and 16bit - I know, I've had entry level components.
But once you start investing in separate components: a good DAC, preamp, amp, quality cables, and of course, the best speakers you can afford - you will hear the difference.
And that's why whenever a soundtrack is released in 24bit, I don't miss the chance to grab it.
What benefit is it that you think 24 bits provides? As I mentioned before, it is simply a lowering of the noise floor and an increase in dynamic range. As Monty so well puts it in his article at http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html (please read it):
"It is also worth mentioning that increasing the bit depth of the audio representation from 16 to 24 bits does not increase the perceptible resolution or 'fineness' of the audio. It only increases the dynamic range, the range between the softest possible and the loudest possible sound, by lowering the noise floor. However, a 16-bit noise floor is already below what we can hear."
He then goes on to scientifically illustrate exactly why this is so, using the established science behind digital audio to illustrate it precisely (in fact, Xiph is one of the organizations that helped define the parameters of digital audio and the FLAC lossless codec).
RE: DACs. Ethan Winer did an interesting test were he used a cheap $20 Sound Blaster card and did some loopback tests to show that even the cheapest DACs these days are audibly transparent. He even posted the loopback files with a challenge to identify which generation they were:
http://ethanwiner.com/loop-back.htm
I won't even really go into cables, as that can really start flame wars. Suffice it to say that there is so much snake oil in the cable market that it staggers the mind. I was in the A/V industry when high end cables were first introduced (Monster Cable was the first), and all of the different companies during their presentations within the industry would talk about how this was a way to restore profitability to audio component sales.
I agree TOTALLY with you about speakers, but I am kind of sad that you did not include acoustic treatments in your list, as they can improve the sound quality in your room far more than any pre-amp, amp, or DAC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, mastering IS incredibly important. It can make or break a song or album and one's enjoyment of it. For instance, I really like Arcade Fire's Reflektor album, but I can't listen to the CD at all because the mastering is atrocious. The recordings sound shrill, flat, and lifeless on every playback system I've tried it on.
I also believe that 24 bit recordings can sound better than 16 bit depending on the technology used in ones playback system, the environment in which that system is located, as well as how the recording is mastered. I've listened to many high resolution recordings against the CD's counterparts and in most cases I've easily preferred the high resolution versions, even when burned to a CD. However, I have also heard poorly mastered high res recordings that were the same as or inferior to a CD release from years earlier. Most notable for me was the first three Madonna albums offered through HDtracks. Her first and third albums were no different from the CD's, but her second album Like A Virgin was worse, way worse than the CD released a whole decade earlier. It was the sloppiest mastering I'd ever heard in my entire life that it me made me angry enough to fire off a letter to Warner Bros/Sire.
Now, going back to the 24 bit vs 16 bit debate, I am still a proponent of 24 bit, but since hearing the new DSD conversion process from components that Sony and PS Audio have recently introduced on the market, 16 bit CD recordings are no longer perceived as inferior by me. On the contrary, they sound as good or even better than 24 bit high res, depending on the mastering. Music also sounds far more live and real than I've heard CD recordings sound before. I feel jilted that I have not been able to listen to all of the recordings in my collection the way they were meant to be heard; All due to the limitations of the PCM playback system. I am however looking forward to revisiting my entire collection once I'm able to acquire one of those components for myself. If anyone gets the opportunity to try out one of them out, take the time to listen. You won't be sorry.
FWIW, I agree with about half of what you posted Mastering is all important.
I was at one of the Sony CES presentations on high rez audio and personally know some of the people involved. I was very disappointed that they were comparing old masters to new, yet claiming that the audible benefits were due to the high rez components. Unfair comparison! Until I can personally play with one of these high rez recordings I will reserve judgement. It's so easy to test! All you need to do is take the high rez file, decimate it to 44/16 using just about any audio editor program, then AB the original high rez file with the decimated copy, using the ABX plugin for Foobar. If you end up with a better than 50% correct choice rate, there is probably an audible difference. If you hit at or around 50%, you are probably just guessing and the difference is not audible. Should be fun to test.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
